Appeal No. 97-0374 Application 08/310,493 No. 9, mailed August 5, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted rejection and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8, filed May 8, 1996) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst. OPINION Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art reference, and the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning follows. Appellant’s arguments herein center on the fact that the examiner has taken the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the shape of the 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007